God is a God of reason and intelligence. I understand, in fact, reason to be the first faculty of man, from God.

Evolution, and our brains, were/are perhaps the mechanisms by which that happened, and continues to.

Evolution is a natural process. If it is the mechanism whereby reason and intelligence developed, why drag God into it? How would you distinguish an intelligence that evolved by purely natural means from an intelligence bestowed by God? The features that distinguish them would be your evidence, not the bare fact that humans possess a certain degree of intelligence.

…Hatcher terms it, a "minimalist" concept of God. He is essentially making a case for the existence of a single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe itself. Some may reasonably question whether "a single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe itself" qualifies as "God". Many an atheist may not have any issue with such a "God" but would rather question the label. A theist, on the other hand, would recognize that a "single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe" can be logically translated into religious terminology as "the One and Self-Subsisting Creator of the universe"…

“of a single self-caused cause of the universe that is not the universe itself. “ From nothingness, some thingness, or from chaos came existence, order . Whatever the event, the cause, the spark, is what hatcher labels’ god’. I do not expect atheist to accept it as a god and I do not expect persons of faith to accept it. Atheist can only accept [ ] and people of faith need a creator involver. Only when a person is fully in the state of being dead, will that person know or not know the absolute.

Well, I can't argue with your conclusion.

We'll get the answer when we're dead.

Then again, I also think there will be more questions. For me, Hell would be running out of questions.

So what you mean is that ignorance and lack of imagination drives some people's attitude about what we can achieve. It "seems" impossible, but in reality it turned out to be totally possible. And our achievements are true in reality. We don't make anything happen that is outside nature itself.

Still, you just proved my point. We had the wisdom and understanding. "Good old reason and science" as you put it.

Nothing I said proves anything you claim.

God is a God of reason and intelligence. I understand, in fact, reason to be the first faculty of man, from God.

Gods don't exist in reality, only in human imagination. So you don't understand anything, rather you believe something. That you don't realize this is a failure on your part. we can only understand verifiable truths, which means objective truths, facts. Personal truth isn't an understanding, it's belief. And it is irrelevant beyond yourself.

"Problems" might be opportunities, depending upon how you look at it.

Again, you have this tendency for generous intepretation that doesn't follow the data, rather an intent to validate your religious beliefs. We get to reject your views on that basis.

In any case, you're nit-picking details, in an apparently lazy attempt to miss the bigger picture.

no, it is acknowledging the evidence and data. It is data that is the your enemy because it does not fit your religious beliefs. Of course you want a vague set of data so that you can poorly interpret it to fit your beliefs. That isn't reasonable, nor intelligent. Why not just follow the evidence and data?

I have every confidence to think God exists. Thanks, btw, for reinforcing that.

I don't think you do given what you advocate on these threads. You avoid details of data and evidence, and advocate for sloppy religious interpretations that reason can cut to pieces. If you really thought a god existed and was based on evidence, you would show us. You haven't, and you must be aware that you avoid doing just that.

You, ironically, berate what you see as "opinon" by expressing, well, pure opinon. And yes, you are proving my points. Thanks again.

Furthermore, "imagination," a rejection of ignorance, the sheer joy of knoweldge, the deep bliss of putting what we have so graciously been given to its full use is exactly what I'm talking about.

I see willfull ignorance and a fear of limitless horizons as nothing short of sheer blasphemy.

That's the point you keep missing, because you have such a narrow, trained view of what "religion" even is.

Evolution is a natural process. If it is the mechanism whereby reason and intelligence developed, why drag God into it? How would you distinguish an intelligence that evolved by purely natural means from an intelligence bestowed by God? The features that distinguish them would be your evidence, not the bare fact that humans possess a certain degree of intelligence.

Dogs, cats, apes, dolphins and even ants possess varying degrees of "intelligence." As do humans.

However, we obviously possess something that transends that. And the almost obtuse refusal to even acknowledge that -- and the implications that follow -- strikes me as, well, rather un-intelligent.

I don't know anything about transcendence. Animals have various degrees and kinds of intelligence. Human intelligence differs from dog intelligence just as dog intelligence differs from dolphin intelligence. Is there anything about human intelligence that couldn't have evolved without divine intervention? If so, what? It won't do to just say "It's obvious." You have to present a reasoned argument.

Evolution is a natural process. If it is the mechanism whereby reason and intelligence developed, why drag God into it? How would you distinguish an intelligence that evolved by purely natural means from an intelligence bestowed by God? The features that distinguish them would be your evidence, not the bare fact that humans possess a certain degree of intelligence.

Dogs, cats, apes, dolphins and even ants possess varying degrees of "intelligence." As do humans.

However, we obviously possess something that transends that. And the almost obtuse refusal to even acknowledge that -- and the implications that follow -- strikes me as, well, rather un-intelligent.

I don't know anything about transcendence. Animals have various degrees and kinds of intelligence. Human intelligence differs from dog intelligence just as dog intelligence differs from dolphin intelligence. Is there anything about human intelligence that couldn't have evolved without divine intervention? If so, what?

What makes you think evolution isn't divine intervention, as such?

Again, "intelligence" is one thing. But we understand. We know.

Or, at least we have the capcity to do so -- and the opportunity to willfully develop that, through both our own individual and collective efforts.

Willfull ignorance chaps me as much as I suspect it does you. "Creationism" is, well.... well, I'd rather not go off in a streak of profanity... but you get the idea.

I don't know anything about transcendence. Animals have various degrees and kinds of intelligence. Human intelligence differs from dog intelligence just as dog intelligence differs from dolphin intelligence. Is there anything about human intelligence that couldn't have evolved without divine intervention? If so, what?

What makes you think evolution isn't divine intervention, as such?

There is no indication of that. The process can be easily and completely explained without recourse to divine intervention.